The reason being as to why pseudoarchaeology/sciences are so harmful to not just the scientific community, but our basic understanding and perception of the natural world is due to the fact it begins to diminish lines between factual understanding and fantasy. It is so easy to get caught up in the quote on quote “curb appeal” of things that we begin to lose our bearings and simple comprehension of the world. Yes, it would be so amazing to think aliens helped build the pyramids, but when science is before us showing the people of the world hard earned facts and the world begins to deny that, it compromises progression. Wanting to believe something based on your faith rather than data and the scientific method is when pseudoscience is comparative to intertwining the church and the state. It becomes dangerous. Brian Fagan, an editor with Expedition posted an article on Penn Museum’s website on pseudoarchaeology and archaeology. He was able to put so simply into words how threatening pseudosciences are, stating, “What, then, is harmful about pseudo-archaeology? Not that it can entertain, as it often does. Instead, harm occurs when the past is explained by a resort to the irrational. And that should be recognized for what it is—an insult to our intelligence.” (Fagan).
As an example, during the early eighteenth century, chairman of natural history Johann Bartholomew Adam Beringer at the University of Würzburg was heavily engaged in debate concerning the origin of fossils. Beringer oftentimes took students out on archaeological digs to uncover artifacts. On one occasion, students went as far as to carve Hebrew, Syrian and Babylonian inscriptions with bizarre animal engravings on stones and buried them to trick Beringer. After uncovering these, Beringer believed the artifacts to be authentic and to have been planted by God himself as a means to test the faith of His followers. This action coined the devastating “Beringer Hoax”. Eventually, Beringer wrote a book on the findings, and the students who caused the elaborate prank became concerned and admitted to their actions. Beringer denied this and said that they were attempting to stop the truth of God. Clearly, Beringer’s research of the falsified stones and carvings were outside the means of science. His truth was based solely on religious interpretation which is way beyond the grounds of archaeological/scientific understanding. Science and religion (as well as personal beliefs) are separate for various reasons, and Beringer’s story is one prime example as to why. Integrating the two are extremely harmful as shown by publishing pieces of literature sure to have been believed due to his reputation. Though religion can be used to understand aspects of science and science used to understand aspects of religion, the two are outside of one another’s realms and for good reason.
I had never heard of the Beringer hoax before this but it’s definitely a great illustrative example of how pseudoscientists depart from the intellectual framework of actual science. Explaining that “his truth was based solely on religious interpretation” was a critical point to make in the process of classifying Beringer’s beliefs as non-scientific, because within religious ways of knowing faith alone is enough evidence for believing a claim. This contrasts heavily with the observation-based methods of science that require iterative testing before a hypothesis can be considered supported by a wealth of collected data. These differences don’t mean that either religion or science is “wrong”, but it signifies that within the two frameworks there are very different ways to observe, collect, and believe a specific kind of truth. Because the bodies of religious thought and scientific thought are created and grown by such disparate methodologies, it’s vitally important not to claim that an idea from one originated from the other. It’s fascinating that even after the students admitted to the hoax, Beringer still defended it. Before he knew that the stones were forgeries, the “appeal to ignorance”-style argument that if there was no way to prove the stones weren’t left by God then they must have been makes more sense than his continued belief after the students came forward. The fact that he eventually refused to consider any alternative explanations for the existence of the stones marks a genuine departure from generating knowledge as a scientist to creating it theologically.